Police officers are choosing to be assaulted rather than use force for fear of being hauled before a misconduct hearing, says the former chair of Staffordshire Police Federation.
Phil Jones told the Police Federation of England and Wales annual conference that scores of officers are attacked in their jobs every day.
But he said many were reluctant to use force when they’re attacked because they could face disciplinary proceedings.
Phil, a conduct and performance lead on the PFEW national board and a region 3 representative covering the Midlands, was speaking during a debate on Government proposals to allow chief constables to chair misconduct hearings rather than the current system of them being led by an independent lawyer.
Under the proposals, a finding of gross misconduct would automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal, unless there were exceptional circumstances.
Phil said: “We have 110 officers assaulted every day but people are choosing to be assaulted rather than use force because ultimately, they could be found wanting in a gross misconduct arena, which, if the Home Office brings in these regulations, you’re looking at automatic dismissal.
“That can’t be right.”
Phil asked how many senior officers had been held accountable for “systemic failures that have contributed to where we are today?”.
“There were senior officers in post then that are in now, and how culpable are they and how many have been held to account? Whereas with the changes that are proposed, it’s my view our members are disproportionately disadvantaged with the gross misconduct element where there’s a presumption of dismissal,” he said.
Chief Superintendent Michael Allen, of Greater Manchester Police, said the changes were “a rebuttable presumption of dismissal”.
“There is still scope for an officer to be found guilty of gross misconduct but receive a sanction lower than dismissal if there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances,” he said.
Addressing Phil’s point about leaders being held to account, he added: “Professional standards departments (PSDs) across the country will be accused of going for the low-hanging fruit.
“Everyone is responsible for high standards of professional behaviour. The PSDs must look upwards as much as they look downwards.
“Senior officers set the standards and the culture. When you go to the College of Policing guidance on outcomes in dismissals, those of the higher rank should suffer the hardest fall and PSDs should be switched on to that.”
John Bassett, a barrister and president of the National Association of Legally Qualified Chairs, said legally qualified chairs (LQCs) were introduced to make the process “open, transparent and fair”.
He asked: “We have had the Home Office review and there’s been a number of announcements in the press suggesting dismissals by LQC-chaired panels have been reduced since their introduction, that we are ‘fundamentally soft’, but when you read the review itself that is simply not substantiated.
“There has not been a reduction in the number of dismissals.”
He added: “ What is intended to be achieved by the proposed change other than to give chief officers more power over the process than they currently have?
“At the moment we’re the best thing that prevents unfair dismissal of officers as they can’t bring claims in employment tribunals.”
Phil said there was no place in policing for officers who abused their position, and added that chief officers already have the power to dismiss under certain circumstances where the evidence was incontrovertible.
“They can go to accelerated fast-track hearings,” he said. “They have that mechanism already.
“But where there have been genuine mistakes and learning, that has to be an option.”
Chief Superintendent Michael Allen, of Greater Manchester Police, said: “We have still people serving who have been found proven in terms of allegations of abuse of position for sexual purpose where they predated on vulnerable females, where they’ve tested positive on a drugs test, where they’ve lied in evidence, where they’ve been found going equipped.
“These are serious matters that are completely incompatible with policing yet within the 2016 and 2020 system those individuals have been allowed to remain in policing, which is a problem operationally.
“It’s those officers who don’t deserve to be in policing and that’s why policing has asked for a chief constable or assistant chief constable-chaired hearing to exit those individuals.
“The chief constable as the employer should have a greater say.”
Phil said officers should be able to expect “a fair and transparent process”.
“We like to think we’re not politicised, but we are,” he said. “Police and Crime Commissioners are politically aligned, and who’s to say that a chief officer may make a decision based on the fact they’re having a contract extended in six months' time, or not as the case may be.
“We know public confidence is huge, and it needs to be, and the police officers have to be accountable for the actions they do or don’t do, but even those officers deserve a fair hearing.”
